210 Symmar versus 210 G-Claron

[IanG]

Seems ridiculous. Both Xenars and G-Clarons were out of production well before then.

My 150mm f5.6 Xenar has a SN from early 2000's, and there were new G Claron's for sale at the same time. The Xenar's were available in 3 focal lenghts.

The Internet Archive/Way back machine will show Robert White in the UK selling them brand new, also G Claron's.

So were they out of production ? Not at all but they hadn't been available for a while and were sold through only a small number of dealers.

I do remember the adverts in the early 2000's for them on the internet which is also when the G Claron was hyped up.

A comment about the resolution test is they are of a flat field chart so will always favour flat field lenes, and these ones don't measure spherical distortions.

Ian

[Drew Wiley]

Hard to say exactly when lenses were actually mfg vs "sold out" unless you contact
Schneider. The quantities would have been minor anyway as a given line panned out.
Saw the last dealer new G-Claron sell out about two or three years ago. Lots of internet sites per se still list cameras and lenses that the dealer has been out of for
a long time. Apparently some sites are rarely updated. In this country G-Clarons were
undersold to say the least. Not many photographers seemed to recognize their versatility unless word got around on forums like this one.

[Drew Wiley]

I can certainly see "discernable differences" in a 30x40 INCH immaculate Cibachrome print enlarged from 4x5 from these respective lenses. But I know what to look for. The general public probably couldn't even spot the difference, all else being equal. Either way they'd look damn sharp if your darkroom technique is tuned in. You'd get a bigger
improvement generally with bigger film (8x10), rather than beating this lens subject to
death. I do strongly prefer the G-Claron for its smaller size packed and better close-up
performance. But we're talking about nuances here, valid in some circumstances, overkill in others.

[GPS]

...

When enlarging negatives to 40*50 cm (most frequent size) or 50*60 (max in my tiny darkroom) would there be discernible differences (yes I will run that test.. ..) ?


Best,

Cor

So Cor,, by now you have probably more opinions than you asked for... Chances are, that when running your test, all you will be able to see is the momentaneous capacity to focus your enlarger - more than the real lens qualities comparison.

[IanG]

Hard to say exactly when lenses were actually mfg vs "sold out" unless you contact
Schneider. The quantities would have been minor anyway as a given line panned out.
Saw the last dealer new G-Claron sell out about two or three years ago. Lots of internet sites per se still list cameras and lenses that the dealer has been out of for
a long time. Apparently some sites are rarely updated. In this country G-Clarons were
undersold to say the least. Not many photographers seemed to recognize their versatility unless word got around on forums like this one.

Sounds like excuses

Schneider state the dates of their SN's and the dealers I use keep their sales pages upto date.

What no one's addrtessing is thay test charts throw up false figures especially for process lenses.

Ian

[John NYC]

What no one's addrtessing is thay test charts throw up false figures especially for process lenses.

Ian

You never cited your source on your last claim, so I doubt you will here on this, but I will ask anyway. Please cite your source for this assertion.

[John Kasaian]

An interesting photograph with an x lens beats a dull photograph with a y lens. Unless you're into earth imaging or counterfeiting greenbacks, pick either and get out there and make pictures By futzing around with optical theories about one lens or another, you're basically give yourself ready made excuses for failure. Even if a G is superior to a Symmar( or vice-versa) there are bound to be other lenses that are even better. This is how people end up chasing magic bullets. I maintain that any lens can be a magic bullet if it s used to the best of your abilities.

[GPS]

An interesting photograph with an x lens beats a dull photograph with a y lens. Unless you're into earth imaging or counterfeiting greenbacks, pick either and get out there and make pictures By futzing around with optical theories about one lens or another, you're basically give yourself ready made excuses for failure. Even if a G is superior to a Symmar( or vice-versa) there are bound to be other lenses that are even better. This is how people end up chasing magic bullets. I maintain that any lens can be a magic bullet if it s used to the best of your abilities.

I agree with you. Except for professional reasons very few photographers would need to change lenses only because the X lens has 10 lines/mm better resolution than the other one. Even more so with their Cocos wooden field cameras...

[IanG]

You never cited your source on your last claim, so I doubt you will here on this, but I will ask anyway. Please cite your source for this assertion.

Test charts are flat field subjects perhaps you don't trealise that

So a repro/copy lens will give far better results because that's what they are designed for.

No rocket science in that . . . . . . . .

Bacck in the late 70's & 80's the best lens tests in UK magazines dropped test charts for this reason and used more practical testing under real life situations, that mades far more sense.

Ian

[Kevin Crisp]

Aren't virtually all photographic lenses "flat field" lenses?